U.N. sea treaty supporters feel the heat
By Cheryl K. Chumley
web posted May 17, 2004
This can truly be called a win for the Gipper.
When former president Ronald Reagan declined to enter
America into the United Nations' Law of the Sea Treaty, it
seemed the debate over regulating the world's oceans at the
global level had ended, at least for the duration of his leadership.
Under former President Bill Clinton's watch, this treaty was then
amended, supposedly to reflect the concerns of many in politics
who found aspects of the document threatening to U.S.
sovereignty. True conservatives in Congress, namely Sen. Jesse
Helms, found these so-called revisions laughable, though, and
successfully prevented ratification from occurring, saving
America in the process from placing yet another U.N. albatross
about her neck.
Fast-forward to February 2004. Sen. Helms is gone and in his
place as chair of the Foreign Relations Committee is Sen.
Richard Lugar from Indiana, a Republican by name only as his
globalist actions these past few months would seem to indicate.
Lugar is responsible for pushing the Law of the Sea Treaty,
dormant for years, through his committee with a 19-0 vote and
toward the full Senate floor for ratification.
But here's where the Gipper can claim a win: Constituent outcry
with the many anti-constitutional provisions of this treaty has
escalated to such an extent that a House committee took the
unusual step of holding hearings on this proposed U.N.
partnership on May 12. What's strange about this occurrence is
that the House side of Congress has absolutely no formal voice
in deciding whether a treaty achieves U.S. ratification.
The president "shall have power, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of
the senators present concur," Article Two, Section Two of the
Constitution reads. House International Relations Committee
Chair Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), in a move that seemed to surprise
and frustrate Lugar, nonetheless heard testimony on LOST, in
part he said to prepare and educate members in case ratification
ensued, since treaty appropriations requests would have to flow
through this side of Congress.
Lugar, it seems, is less than pleased with this latest twist to
LOST fate.
In a statement submitted as part of the official record for Hyde's
hearing, Lugar expressed puzzlement that treaty ratificaiton has
been delayed, given the broad support for this measure from the
administration, environmentalists, the State Dept., the U.S. Navy
and the oil industry, and given that his committee reportedly only
received one letter of opposition when LOST was re-introduced
for debate this February.
"...Senate consideration of the treaty has been held up for more
than two months by vague and unfounded concerns about the
Convention's effects," Lugar wrote. "These concerns have been
expressed primarily by those who oppose virtually any multi-
lateral agreements. Many of the arguments they have made are
patently untrue."
Untrue, for instance, Lugar alluded, are views of those like Frank
Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, who told
House International Relations Committee members that "LOST
will have a number of adverse implications for U.S. security
interests and the national commonwealth more generally."
Gaffney wondered publicly, for instance, how America might
preserve her economic and military powers after entering into an
agreement that regulates activities on 70 percent of the world's
surface, the seas, with a global force that usually displays an "ill-
conceived hostility" toward our nation. Such hostile nations,
Gaffney continued, often "use agreements like LOST as part of a
Lilliputian-like strategy to constrain our sovereignty and strength
and redistribute the industrial world's wealth – and ours – to
undeveloped states."
Untrue to Lugar, too, must be beliefs like those of former
Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick, who
testified previously to the Sen. Armed Services Committee that
U.S. ratification of this treaty not only compromises America's
sovereign ability to traverse and mine or drill the seas absent
U.N. oversight, but also jeopardizes our nation's freedom to
access the air and space above these waters.
But poor Lugar. The injustices done this treaty via false
witnessing during four separate April and May hearings have
raged uncontrollably, he must believe.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Kan.) questioned an aspect of the treaty
that gives participating nations the right to decline vessel searches
if those on board claimed their sea travels were related to
economic rather than military activity. What that means is the
United States cannot board a suspect vessel without first
receiveing the permission of U.N. authorities, even if our
intelligence finds a security threat exists.
Rep. Thomas Tancredo (R-Col.) asked House International
Relations Committee witnesses in support of LOST why, if the
United States were already informally abiding the very same
protocols and laws of the sea this Law of the Sea Treaty
solidifies with binding language – as these two witnesses testified
– we even needed to participate in the treaty and risk that
opponents' concerns might one day become reality.
And Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), during this same committee
hearing, went one step further. Why, he wondered, does the
Unted States suddenly need U.N. regulation over the seas when
individual nations have successfully overseen and decided
matters in these areas for decades?
Good points all, it might logically follow – except for the pesky
matter of those inherent untruths that Lugar claims permeate all
such arguments and concerns. Guess all these Gippers floating
around lately haven't a clue about such heady matters as the
Constitution and sovereignty, individual rights and American
freedoms, and best pipe down and not bother the
internationalists with these petty concerns.
Cheryl K. Chumley is a freelancer and contributor to
www.newswithviews.com and www.thedailycannon.com. She
may be reached via email at ckchumley@aol.com.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com